Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has drawn significant scrutiny over his recent actions against narco-terrorism, spurred by allegations stemming from a September attack on a drug-smuggling boat. The controversy gained traction as numerous media outlets, including the U.K.’s Guardian, suggested Hegseth ordered the elimination of survivors from that September 2 incident. However, in a recent closed-door briefing, Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley refuted these claims, asserting that the subsequent strike was justified. Such a defense may bolster Hegseth’s position amidst ongoing debate in Congress about the military’s engagement in the drug war.
Echoing his decisive approach, Hegseth ordered another strike on December 4 against a vessel in international waters known to be operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization. U.S. Southern Command confirmed via their X account that this operation resulted in the destruction of a boat trafficking illicit narcotics. The announcement highlighted that four male terrorists on board were killed, further demonstrating Hegseth’s commitment to addressing narco-terrorism with unyielding force.
Hegseth’s strong stance is evident in his social media activity too. Following the successful destruction of the narco-boat, he responded to Andrew Kolvet from Turning Point USA, who defended his actions, by tweeting, “Your wish is our command, Andrew. Just sunk another narco boat.” This statement underscores not only Hegseth’s willingness to act but also his engagement with supporters who align with his aggressive approach to combating drug trafficking and its associated violence.
The military’s recent focus on narco-terrorism is marked by an impressive operational tempo. Reports indicate that since September, more than twenty attacks have targeted narcotics smuggling vessels, culminating in at least 87 deaths. This toll speaks volumes about the seriousness with which the military is treating this issue and reflects a significant escalation in engagements since Hegseth took the helm.
When asked directly whether Hegseth issued a “kill all” order, Senator Tom Cotton made a definitive statement, emphasizing that Admiral Bradley was clear: no such directive was given. This clarification may help dispel misconceptions and highlight the structured decision-making within the military regarding lethal operations.
As the narrative unfolds, Hegseth’s pugnacious approach has certainly ignited passionate discussions in Washington, with implications that stretch beyond the immediate operational successes. His handling of the controversy surrounding recent strikes suggests a willingness to confront threats directly while also navigating the complex landscapes of public perception and military protocol. This duality might ultimately define his tenure as Secretary of War, positioning him in a way that resonates with those who champion assertive national defense strategies.
"*" indicates required fields
